The 19th Amendment Did Not Affect All Women

The 19th Amendment Did Not Affect All Women

The fight for Voting Rights across the country is still a struggle.
16424
views

It’s a fact we’ve learned to regurgitate; in the year 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified. It prohibited any United States citizen from being denied the right to vote on account of their gender. It's been hailed as the one of the greatest, if the not the greatest achievement for our country's women's rights movement.

What we don’t hear, is that two years after this amendment was passed, the Supreme Court ruled people of Japanese heritage were ineligible to become naturalized citizens -- a court found the same with Asian Indians in the following year. Not being able to become naturalized citizens, of course, affected what demographic of women could actually vote. In 1924, Native Americans were granted citizenship through the Indian Citizenship Act, but many states still passed laws preventing Native Americans from voting, for as late as the year 1957.

It wasn’t until 1943 that Chinese Americans were first permitted to become citizens, after the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed. For Filipinos, it wasn’t until 1946; for Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans, this did not come until 1952. In 1964, women of lower socio-economic status were faced with one less barrier to voting; there was now no tax to pay anywhere in the country in order to vote.

In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed abolishing legal barriers that prevented black Americans from voting. In 1990, polling centers were required to have accommodations for Americans with disabilities with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the year 2000, a federal court decided US Territories could not vote in presidential elections. The fight for Voting Rights across the country is still a struggle; in this month, alone, a federal appeals court struck down a voter ID law in North Carolina that was described as targeting African American voters "with almost surgical precision."

Why is it, then, that we accept the 19th Amendment as being the point when women were allowed the right to vote? It's presented in our history classes, our media, etc., as if the struggle to get women to vote ended with the passing of this amendment to the Constitution, which is simply not true. To state so would be to exclude essentially all women of color, among white women who couldn't afford to pay a poll tax.

Some could argue there’s exceptions to every fact and law in our history, but it’s not as if one specific group of women were an exception to this. Asian women, Native American women, black women, poor women and more were unable to exercise their right to vote, and their struggles have been arguably erased in the acceptation of the 19th Amendment being the point in which all women could vote.

When we use the word women, we assume it applies to women of every race and ethnicity; instead, it’s been reduced to mean only white women. When we say women earned the right to vote in 1920, we're whitewashing history. To be fair, we have no reason to not pause and think if this is a whitewashing of history, because of the pure lack of information on voting rights of marginalized and minority groups in our country.

Often, high school American history classes have been dubbed as being a history of "great white men." It's not hard to picture the only real segment of women's history taught in most history classes really only applies to that of "great white women." It shouldn’t be surprising that we’ve been conditioned to accept the notion that saying women got the right to vote in 1920 as appropriate, because of how our history is often taught to us.

Recently, with the recognition of white feminism becoming slowly more prevalent in our country's society, it’s important for us as a people to not portray women’s struggles as merely white women’s struggles. It's more than frustrating to see our politicians, socially-conscious celebrities, and other prominent figures speak as if the 19th Amendment was the end of women's struggle for voting rights. It's easy to accept the erasing of the history. After all, most people were taught a history that erased struggles of marginalized groups. It’s harder to try to write history back into a place it deserves to be. Women worked hard for the 19th Amendment to be ratified. It's time to recognize women that also worked hard for their own voting struggles, long after the 19th Amendment was ratified.

Cover Image Credit: Bio.

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.

27920
views

Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Will Bryce Harper And Manny Machado Ever Sign Anywhere At All?

So please, Harper and Machado, put us out of our misery and just pick a team and sign somewhere already.

31
views

As the MLB offseason is coming to a close, I can't help but feel like it has barely started. Why? Pitchers and catchers report to their respective spring training camps in less than two weeks, and many free agents have yet to sign with a team.

Needless to say, it has been an unusual baseball offseason. This offseason has left me with so many unanswered questions. Even though my beloved New York Mets have made many respectable signings, and trades, this offseason, I am still left pondering the fate of other major league teams.

Where will the superstars that everyone can't stop talking about, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado both 26 and together possessing 10 All-Star berths and 61 career bWAR sign? Will they join a rival team of mine? Or bolster a team in another division's line-up? Where will the rest of the free agent's sign?

Trade rumors are spreading like wildfire, and yet, baseball fans including myself are left with no definite answers. Yes, apps like MLB At Bat and Bleacher Report may be blowing up our phones with alleged rumors and clickbait written by esteemed baseball writers, but no progress has been made.

So please, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, put us out of our misery and just pick a team and sign somewhere already.

Regardless of the recent release of the MLB: The Show 19 Cover, Bryce Harper did not announce where he was going to sign. Though Phillies fans are believed to have Harper in the bag, no official news has been released. Honestly, the suspense is killing me!

Philadelphia met with Harper in his native Las Vegas to pitch to Harper, and the pitch allegedly went so well that the ball club decided to focus solely on Harper instead of both Harper and Machado.

Other teams such as the Chicago White Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers have each shown a great amount of interest in both free agents Harper and Machado.

The Chicago White Sox have a stockpile of prospects and have kept payrolls low. They've also been collecting members of Machado's inner circle including Jon Jay, whom he trains with over the offseason and Yonder Alonso, his brother in law.

Could these all be signs that he could be going to the White Sox? According to ESPN's Buster Olney, the White Sox gave Machado a formal offer of $175 million over 7 years. Yet, no further progress has been made on that front.

The Los Angeles Dodgers had previously acquired Machado from a trade with the Baltimore Orioles. Machado even said he loved playing in Los Angeles during the second half of the 2018 season, so why wouldn't they try to bring him back? They should be in on Harper too, which would be more logical for the Dodgers, since they need a superstar bat and can accommodate his salary.

Though Harper has received some incredible offers, some forget that he could stay with the Nationals, a ball club that he has been a part of for 17 years, after all. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed put and didn't go to another team at all.

The New York Yankees who were said to be interested in Machado never made a formal offer to him, and never truly seemed interested at all. The Chicago Cubs, who were said to be interested in Harper never made an offer either, despite Kris Bryant being one of Harper's friends, and Harper having a dog named Wrigley.

Most recently, there have been said to be mystery teams in on Machado, including the San Diego Padres and who knows who else. Obviously, this offseason is far from over and who knows, maybe these two won't even report to spring training after all.

This new trend of free agents waiting to sign with teams is a hint to all of us invested in the baseball world that something deep within the offseason free agency is broken. Hopefully somehow, someway, we will get the answer to the question: Will Bryce Harper and Manny Machado ever sign anywhere at all?

Related Content

Facebook Comments